Talk:Opinion

don't delete

This will need a lot of work, but I think it's worth it. I know that there are people out there who have already shown that they can turn such a stub into a great article. Please don't put it on Votes for deletion. <KF> 19:40, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Concerned with article

I see no progress with this article. This article surely needs attention, maybe merge with another article. Sorry I'm not bold enough make drastic changes. This might mean homework. Untermenschen 17:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've learnt that there's no point making any changes to articles... the only people with the time to revise them properly are the ill-informed trolls without either day-jobs or social lives that guard these pages.

I'm only editing this, because I searched google for it, and thought it'd take no time to add some shite... how wrong I was... what a waste of time it all is... but I'll leave it now.

You've got to admit, the opinion page not being backed up by any references or fact is pretty hilarious. Agoaj (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia screwed this topic since they started stating some opinions as facts and some opinions as lies. How can you define opinions now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:90C8:503:BE18:1CDE:E729:3C32:9D6B (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Same difficulty in the german article but Im not a good writer. Though a structural grid might look like this:

• What is an opinion or rather how does it come into being? Input of information etc. Keep it simple here, communication theory like
• How do opinions evolve? Adaption from others or differenciation (disputes), same goal harmonizations (formation of eg standards, laws). Influence of social hierarchies, (religious) believe. Impact of sympathy or dislike of the sender for recipient.
• Types of opinions. Already there.
• Process of opinion-making and manipulation. Media! And propaganda.
• Optionally and most difficult: assessing/evaluation of opinions/surveys. Already partly there: what does it say about its society

LetztesSagen (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Poor definition

This quote at the top:

"If it later becomes proven or verified, it is no longer an opinion, but a fact."

I don't think this makes sense.

You could say that "One definition of an opinion is that it is an interpretation of available information; and an unvalidated argument. Opinions by this definition are prone to being logically fallacious, because this definition of an opinion is an idea that is not asserted as a fact or a truth, and as such does not require evidence to be presented; and thus the conclusion is the premiss: it's a premiss without support; a circular argument without any requirement for evidence."

e.g.: "I think wikipedia is an unreliable source of information, [implicit "because..."]"

This is an opinion; and an (unsupported) argument. It's unsupported because the "evidence" is implicitly that "I wouldn't say it if it weren't true"; that would make it a logical fallacy.

For example you could have an opinion that invokes the fallacy of wishful thinking or the fallacy of unfalsifiability: an error in explanation that occurs when the explanation contains a claim that is not falsifiable, because there is no way to check on the claim. That is, there would be no way to show the claim to be false if it were false. Example:

   He lied because he's possessed by demons.

You can't really prove an evaluation, because there is no objective truth, only theory, which itself is a circulus in probando. You could talk about the probability of it being true or false.

As far as I can tell "verifying an opinion" means "establishing that it exists"; it does not say anything about its validity or "trueness".

Unless, of course, we're going to talk about things like "medical opinion", "scientific opinion" and "legal opinion"; but even these are just interpretations of evidence, and can be prone to fallacy. (I recently had a debate with a Psychology Phd, and he kept "denying the antecedent", quoting all sorts of stuff, but the actual argument he made with all this evidence was the same drum-banging logical fallacy!)

What terrible rubbish. Everything but the first paragraph is only understandable as off topic chitchat. And I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'unvalidated argument', or whether you understand that unfalsifiable statements may be true and justified. Your problem may be that you do not understand that abduction and induction are justified inferences. Someone who has only seen and heard of white swans is justified in inferring that all swans are white: they have not committed a fallacy but their conclusion is false. Turning to that first paragraph, you suggest that opinion is "an unvalidated argument. Opinions by this definition are prone to being logically fallacious, because this definition of an opinion is an idea that is not asserted as a fact or a truth, and as such does not require evidence to be presented; and thus the conclusion is the premiss: it's a premiss without support; a circular argument without any requirement for evidence". You claim that all ideas are either asserted as a fact, or are a particular form of argument ["opinions"]. But I have ideas that I do not claim are true, and are not meant to be good reasons to believe something. E.g., my idea "I am floating in space". You might respond that that is not an idea, just an idle thought, but then what on earth argument do you now have to define 'opinion' as you said? Note that even if it is meant as non literally, maybe it's about my feelings of love for you, the sentence is not "asserted as a fact or truth" or an "unvalidated argument". Crucially, opinions can include sentences that are suggested by the evidence when there is not much evidence [From just hearing Abbey Road, I might form the opinion that the Beatles only release songs sung in English. But then I may be unable or unwilling to assert that as fact before hearing more or all of their discography]. In conclusion it seems the post above denies abduction induction and all empirical knowledge!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.67.3 (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary definition contradiction?

Do you think the Wiktionary definition contradicts some parts of the article? 74.116.137.2 23:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we add a ref to epistemology?

I'd think that epistemology is all about this kind of concept? --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Two years later:  Done (may have been there in the interim) ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we remove this line?

Does this line really add anything?

Accordingly, all information on the web, from a surfer's perspective, is better described as opinion rather than fact.

I immediately wanted to facetiously add, "And should you ever find a fact, don't put it on the web: because the web is about opinions, and not facts. If you find a fact, write it down in a book, and put it on the shelf. Make sure it doesn't come anywhere near a computer."

I'm not sure the whole honey-pot of argument is really necessary, though; I'd much rather see the line stricken.

LionKimbro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Chef Gordon Ramsey

Gordon Ramsay (chef) also once noted "opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got one." What does this have to do with the article, and why is it attributed to Ramsey? All of my life, I've heard the phrase used by many people. I'm 100% sure that it's been around longer than him. For that reason, I believe that this should be removed. --172.169.23.82 (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I almost forgot to add, that the full quote is "Opinions are like assholes; Everyone has one, and everybody thinks that everyone else's stink." There are variations as well. I know there's one in the film The Dead Pool, but wikiquote has a page on it that may help. [1] --172.169.23.82 (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree that this quote is not properly attributed to him and is probably inappropriate for the article. I've removed it. PubliusFL (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Opinion

The phrase 'Scientific Opinion' is not particularly in keeping with this definition. 'Scientific Opinions' are, be definition evidence-backed. Also, frequently, 'scientific opinions' are often the formal, consensus positions of particular science-based organisations.

[nb: just to preempt a circular debate, there is no such thing as a singular "The Scientific Opinion" (implying other opinions are by definition necessarily un-scientific) although there may be a consensus of scientific opinion]

Should 'Scientific Opinion' have a subsection here?Jaymax (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Without citations the current text says a scientific opinion is based on evidence and the scientific method. But at conferences, we say scientists present their "findings" not their opinions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A finding is something you've found out. An opinion is something you think is probably true. For instance could easily get a scientific opinion that gene therapy was the best way to spend the money to get the results and that nanomachines just weren't far enough advanced to spend large amounts of money on but were still worth developing. That would certainly not be a finding from a scientific study. Dmcq (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

'Fact'

The intro uses the word 'fact' in two different senses, which may not be ideal.

In the first para "or an interpretation of facts" it seems to use fact in the sense of something which is provably true.

In the third para "the facts they are based on can be said to be true or false." in the usage of something which is assumed by the subject to be true.

Both of these are valid according to dictionaries see Fact - but I think we could be clearer with alternative wording, or more explanation.--Jaymax (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Rab - I thought 'ideas' was a bit too fuzzy - I was going to drop in 'premise' as an alternative but that didn't seem accurate. I'd really like to see this article improved tho...--Jaymax (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy a social science?

I see there's a line that goes, "In economics, philosophy, and other social sciences". I don't see how philosophy in general is necessarily a social science. I propose that we use the line, "In economics, other social sciences and philosophy". Wuffyz 03:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD --Jaymax (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Aye. Wuffyz 22:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if this article could be expanded with references.

Added the syn tag for absence of references. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

Concur with your point, but switched to the OR tag, because SYN is normally where there are sources given, but the text merges their content somehow. Also, because I wrote that para - I know it was OR. I've yet to find a solid reference, but the meaning is clear from innumerable uses. I accept that this is not good enough! I'm amazed the philosophers aren't more interested in this article! Jaymax (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Made a mention at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Philosophy Jaymax (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The references search goes on (Scientific Opinion)

Dumping links that might be useful refs re Scientific Opinion (perhaps for an article of it's own)

If you find anything useful, please add it (nb: usage isn't useful - need discussion of, and ideally definitions of, scientific opinion/s)

I'll transcribe the pertinent bits in the future.

Google books: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

‒ Jaymax✍ 10:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work. This should help to better characterize. I hope the text address that opinions originate from subjective individuals and organization, to reflect their intended purposes and functions. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For any interested, I'm expanding these with excerpts at User:Jaymax/Scientific_Opinion#Refs slowly. Update, have captured the relevant text from the above and a couple of others on that page. Some interesting stuff, and some less so. ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wonderfully brilliant. How may I help you? Should I just keep looking for sources? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but particularly try to find some authoritative source that basically states: "A scientific opinion is an opinion which ... blah blah" or similar. ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This a philosophy of science question, might be good to look at how scientific fact is defined in Ravetz, Jerome Raymond (1996). Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1560008512. In my opinion, opinions are object of the mind. Facts are treated much the same way as existence. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

see [2]

What's bizzare in that paper, is the title presumption of the existence of 'scientific fact', vs the introductory remarks that strongly imply there is no such thing (wrt Hansen). It goes on to critique the testimony, but never quotes Hansen saying that something is 'fact'. Rather, the paper then continues to state several of it's own findings as 'facts' (eg. "In fact, since the beginning of the 21st century, the atmosphere’s methane ..."). There might be some good stuff in the intro, but it's too self-contradictory on the key issue (science-is-opinion-not-fact), IMHO, to be usable. ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

see these too. [3], [4]

Have added extensive tracts from [5] to my user-sub-page. Great! Was there a particular item at the google search link (link was to page 16 or something, and that stuff can change by the hour). ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinion and Mission

I agree with this [6] and edit summary, except for one important exception ... every scientific mission has narrowed its scope to close certain gaps with specifically aimed goals ... an objective or hypothesis with which to verify and validate. In doing such, there is the risk of a myopic "scientific opinion". Best to work with the sources in this article. Neglecting the role that organization missions have in the opinion formation, is a major oversight of many a naive and fool hearty scientists who place too much faith and pride in their work or degrees. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean my "scientfic mission" and "organization missions" - I assume this to mean the formal "mission statement" of the organisation, such as the Royal Society's "to expand knowledge and further the role of science and engineering in making the world a better place" http://royalsociety.org/Strategic-Priorities/ ‒ Jaymax✍ 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's it ... the formal org missions are what I meant. Missions are what governments approve to grant tax exempt status (at least in the U.S.). Presumably, every org has a governance structure, who's member's primary role is to assure that the "scientific mission" is within the "organization mission". To be simple, all "scientific missions" are a sub class of "organization missions". Nearly all org missions are governed by some civil articles of membership. Scientists are naive to believe that "scientific opinions" have greater standing than all other opinions, because scientific opinion is often so narrow in view (so as to be verified to an objective point of fact), that it strikes against the very purpose of civil discouse (which is to bring many opinions togeather). Concluding the forum. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

ZP5, I have often struggled to get what your point is, but this is very clear, thank you. I'm not sure I agree, but that might some down to a semantic debate on what it means for an "opinion" to have "standing". My concluding comment: I suspect that all too often the problem is not that scientists think their opinions "have" increased standing, but that they think they automatically "should" - on one level I agree with that, on another I think that's just not the way humanity works, or could ever work, and such a presumption is therefore incredibly naive. ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The scientific process is good, but not all there is to fact finding.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

Opinion vs. Belief

The current definition - "a belief that cannot be proven with empirical evidence" - does not reflect the general meaning of the word (i.e. how the word is actually used) or any specialized meaning used in philosophy. Philosophically, an opinion is really synonymous with belief; however, the term is not commonly used. Any mathematical statement about infinity cannot be proven with empirical evidence (one cannot witness infinity), but it does not make all such statements into opinions.

Colloquially, the word opinion is used to signify that only limited amount of consideration was given to the topic before the assertion that constitutes the opinion was made, that consideration is necessarily incomplete, that the statement is an interpretation of facts that allows for debate and contradiction. This is implicit in the common retort: "Well, that's your opinion." It also helps understand why newspapers have opinion columns and scientists and other professionals give opinions (for example, in court). Their statements are made at the time they are requested as a guide to action or formation of judgment in a context that presumes the possibility of retort.

The presumption that opinion is based on incomplete information and is specifically meant to guide action or decision is what distinguishes opinion from belief, which can be a conviction resulting from a lifetime of consideration and/or may never be acted on by anyone.

Therefore, I propose that the definition change to: a statement, generally meant to guide action or decision, that is presumed to be based on incomplete information and implies the possibility of debate. This should make discussion of legal opinion, scientific opinion, judicial opinion much more consistent with the general definition.

Finally, the article should probably add a discussion of newspaper opinions and be moved out of philosophy.

I will wait for concurrences and responses before attempting to change the article. Inko Inko (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Umm, after reading that, I would say that rather than just changing the definition, there's good stuff in your commentary that would also be great to drop into the article! Have you come here from project Philosophy? If so, I'd hate to see it moved out and lose this kind of input :-/ (although you might want to lower the importance rating). Also, perhaps: a statement of belief, generally...? Finally, refs, if you've got em - we need em! ‒ Jaymax✍ 04:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are some references to someone who analyzed the distinction between opinions and beliefs: Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd. http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/445/pg445.html Volume II of the work is entitled "BOOK II THE OPINIONS AND BELIEFS OF CROWDS" [LES OPINIONS ET LES CROYANCES DES FOULES] I have not read the text, but it might be relevant as Le Bon is credited with being an early and influential crowd psychologist. He is a controversial figure, however, as fascists used his ideas. Some further research is needed about whether and how to treat his contribution to this topic in this Wiki article. Inko Inko (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Inductive reasoning

I think this version of the lead better captures the relationship between opinion, fact and inductive reasoning than the current version. Perhaps the problem with the older version is the use of the word proof. Although I am happy with it (being a mathematician), some people will read it and think (no proof, that means it's probably not true!), whereas someone can have an opinion that is very, very likely to be true... and it would still be an opinion. Yaris678 (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should use the term formal proof, although arguably the term is too technical. Yaris678 (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I merged back in most of the old lead para. Needs some tweaking. I think we should avoid talking about provability, and stick within an inductive context. ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's much better now. Not sure about having such a strong connection to the subjectivity. If you look at that article, it is all about perspectives and feeling, and not about facts. The words in that article are also similar to some of the new words in the opinion article. Think we need to have a think about whether they really apply to opinion. I notice you removed the citation of a reference about subjectivity. Yaris678 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Add quote?

To give an idea of the scope of opinions, and how next to nothing is neccesary to validate an opinion as an opinion, I reccomend the following quote:

   “Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion”

Democritus

As a noob, I didn't want to rush in and do it myself. If you disagree, I'm interested in feedback as to why.

Thanks.

QEDQEDQED (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a great epigram for a deeper discussion of certainty vs. opinion/belief and the fact that designating something an "opinion" is often a defensive or an aggressive act of denying it projected or intended certainty, implying bias, strategy or choice. In fact, the root "op" of "opinion" means "choice" in Latin. Certainty eliminates choice and wisdom is the realization that there is very little certain in life, but we can still make choices that lead to happiness.

Inko Inko (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Weights of notions, weights as used in artificial neural networks

Different people don't simply measure the notions. For each person each notion has a different weight. Watch MIT lectures. Understand the artificial neural networks; then make corrections on the main text. It is an old idea. The point is to present it in a mathematically testable manner. If you cannot, others can.

English language Expressing an opinion

Heading of expressing an opinion? 103.199.200.54 (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)